Hierachy and Elder Rule

[saturneptune]

Here's my story and I'm sticking w/it:

From abt Aug 1972 - Jan 1996, I was a member of a church in Clarksville TN. Absolutely the worst waste of time were the Business Meeting(s) where Bro So-and-so, after a motion & second moved to support Missionary So-and-so for $10/mo (Of course that was back in 1972, and to the best of my knowledge that $10/mo was never adjusted to represent any annual COLA. Not sure how many pastors we have today who were pastoring back in 1972 who never asked for a salary increase since then....But I digress.:smilewinkgrin, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Our Wed night "prayer" service consisted of "any prayer requests" & then the pastor proceeded on w/His latest rant on whatever...But again I digress.

Long story short, for the most part I dreaded the business meeting(s).

Then when I moved to UCLA (Upper Corner of Lower Antioch [TN -- SE part of Nashville] :smilewinkgrin in late 1995, I came to a church that was in the process of transitioning to a elder-led type-of church govt. (Prior to that, she held an ANNUAL business mtg in the fall!)

Is my church "perfect in all her ways?" Of course not....They let me join didn't they? :tongue3:....All that to say this....If Sis Sapphira or Bro Ahab still have any questions/comments, the weekly Elders' mtg(s) are open for "civilians," and if either or both can't attend, then our records are open to them at any time.

Moreover, we still have deacons, and they help with the Lord's Supper as well as visit the sick, shutins, etc. When you join w/us, you're "assigned" to a deacon of your owning choosing.

Finally, my church is a "cell-based" [We prefer to call them "Life Groups."] church. While our elders will visit any who ask, we've found that, apart from our Sunday morning "Corporate" services, it's better to "do life" that way.

NOW, am I against any other form of church life? Of course not. What works for any other church may not work in the way "we do things" (We are autonomous, aren't we?).

As I said above, "That's my story & I'm sticking w/it."

OK....."RELEASE THE HOUNDS"! :laugh:

I agree that each church is autonomous, and what might fit for one might fit for the other. It is worth repeating that the elders must be more spiritually mature than the average member. People are people everywhere regardless of denomination, and lots, if not most times, people who are higher up on the socio/economic ladder tend to be elected elders, instead of a basis of being spiritually mature.

Autonomy makes a better setting for elder rule, as in churches or denominations with a hierarchy, not only is the congregation giving up some of its authority to the elders, it is giving it up to the hierarchy. In a church that is under the authority of a Presbyery for example, the higher authority has a say so in who is called as pastor, ownership of the building, Sunday School material, and policy in general. No way would I serve in a church that was not autonomous.

In relation to business meetings and authority, even in an autonomous church, there is no way I would waste my time serving in a church, even an autonomous church, where there are deacons, cliques or other groups that have pockets of power and say "my way or the highway."

 

[Bro. James]

Apostasy has been around since Adam fell. Cain apostasized(turned from The Truth).

The mystery of iniquity was already at work in the first century. See the Seven Churches of Asia--the deeds of the Nicolaitans. Fourth century(ca. 325 A.D: many apostates(arch-elders) gathered in a "Nice" place for a council called at the behest of the Roman Emperor, Constantine, the Great One. The impact of this apostasy permeates most of Christendom even today, inspite of a lot of hush money paid out.

How is this for autonomy? A Holy See bishop can sell the parish property at his own discretion.

The Bride, The Lamb's wife is still without spot or blemish or any such thing. She is local, visible and autonomous w/o a hiearchy. She has one headquarters: heaven; one vicar, Jesus, with no cohorts.

Churches do err when they incorporate. Preaching the gospel in not a business. Business produces respect of persons and filthy lucre.

Jesus to a rich young ruler,"Sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, FOLLOW ME," is still in effect. Are we ready?

See the description of the Laodicean Church.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[USN2Pulpit]

But the way that they work over here now is basically let the sheep roam where they will, and only stepping in when one gets close to danger. They don't actually lead their flock, they just keep them away from danger.

True, I have seen this too...but only after they're led to the grazing area. Once led there, they have freedom to feed, and the shepherd watcheds them.

He leads us beside still waters...

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Hey everyone...since the word "autonomy" gets brought up in this discussion, is it REALLY true that the new testament churches were autonomous? If so, why did most of them take their marching orders from Paul - even when he wasn't around?

Perhaps accountability isn't a bad thing?

(Okay - just a discussion subject here. Not trying to change the body politic!)

 

[webdog]

Since Elders are Pastors, I think the main contention is .. Do Pastors/Elders tell the church what to do irregardless of what the Church desires or believes?.. OR.. Do they listen to Church (like a husband to his wife and Christ to His Church) and guide them in such a direction that is biblical.

I don't believe the Church should lead (sheep shouldn't lead sheep), nor should the Pastor/Elder lead as a dictator, but should lead and guide, while listening to the body of Christ and taking their hearts and cares into consideration.

I like the sound of that...but would a shepherd really take into consideration the cares of sheep, or would they do what they felt was best in the sheep's interest

 

[Jerome]

Wise words from John Reisinger:

http://solochristo.com/theology/Church/reiwh.htm

"The following article is written primarily for Reformed Baptists only because that is the group with which I have been identified for over twenty years. . . . I spent ten years in evangelism and preached in an average of forty churches a year. The constant problem that I encountered in many Reformed Baptist churches was the extent of the authority of the church and the eldership."

http://web.archive.org/web/20091012020450/http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index042.htm

"Some Reformed Baptists, as well as others, have attempted to wed two things that are totally opposite. These men have tried to put elements of Presbyterianism into a semi-Baptist framework and managed to destroy the strengths of both systems and exaggerate the weakness of both systems. Both the concept of Presbyterian rule through eldership and the Baptist rule by congregationalism have great strengths when applied in their own settings. However, those very same strengths become very dangerous when they are put into another system. It is this fact that helps to explain the problem of abusive eldership"

"Historically Baptists have taken the congregational form of government. They have resisted both the idea of a Presbytery past the local church and putting the final authority of the local church into the office of eldership. Baptist congregations in the past have had elders but always those elders were subject to the rule of the congregation. The pastor and elders functioned as leaders of the congregation, and as such, their views (rightly so) have great influence. But ultimately, the congregation chose whether or not to accept the recommendations of the pastor and elders."

"It is at this point that some present-day Baptists (mostly Reformed Baptists) have departed from both the Bible and their Baptist forefathers. They have adopted the Presbyterian view of eldership and put the authority of the church in the hands of the eldership, thereby rejecting congregational rule. However, they have also rejected the idea of a Presbytery, or any authority, beyond the local church. They have destroyed the checks and balance established by the Presbytery. This is a hybrid view of authority of recent origin. It is really 'Baptist' Catholicism.

"Here is the problem in this hybrid system: (1) If the authority of a local church is in the eldership and not the congregation (Presbyterian eldership), and (2) if there is no authority past the local congregation (Baptist congregationalism), then (3) to whom can an appeal be made when an elder acts like a tyrant? In such a situation, the eldership is a law unto itself with no accountability to anyone but its own conscience! In such a system, if several families come to the pastor with a sincere concern and he either refuses to listen or is not convinced that they are correct, those individuals are not allowed to even talk to another person after they leave his office. To do so is to be 'guilty of rebellion against God's duly authorized leadership.' Such a system is nothing but Roman popery. There is no check and balance because the eldership is ultimately responsible to no one but itself. A tyrant can have a field day and be untouchable in such a system."

"a hybrid system that adopts a Presbyterian view of eldership and then denies both congregationalism and a Presbytery has, even if unknowingly, created an eldership that has all of the unchecked authority of an infallible pope."

 

[saturneptune]

Hey everyone...since the word "autonomy" gets brought up in this discussion, is it REALLY true that the new testament churches were autonomous? If so, why did most of them take their marching orders from Paul - even when he wasn't around?

Perhaps accountability isn't a bad thing?

(Okay - just a discussion subject here. Not trying to change the body politic!)

I beileve the local churches that Paul started (the Lord through Paul) were local, autonomous churches.

No, accountability is not such a bad thing, and that can be accomplished within the local body. No way do I want a Presbyery, a cardinal, or a bishop telling my local church who we can call as pastor, what changes we can make to our building, what Sunday School material we can teach, or how our bylaws must be structured.

The RCC and Mormon Church has a hierarchy, and that alone is enough to convince me it is something I want no part of.

 

[Yeshua1]

Allan, your views generally reflect my own.

they should model the Lord jesus, and be guiding his flock, to instruct and bring them up into the full knowledge and maturity in Christ..

NOT as "lording" it over them, as but gentle shephards leading wayward sheep!

 

[Allan]

I like the sound of that...but would a shepherd really take into consideration the cares of sheep, or would they do what they felt was best in the sheep's interest

He does both, like a husband, and a father to his children/ Christ toward the Church... and I believe a pastor toward his flock/congregation and the is the way I model to my congregations (yes, plural).

I tell everyone in church what I call - the motto of John the Baptist -
"I must decrease that you may increase" - (He actually states "He must increase and I must decrease".. but I believe it is our responsibility and joy to grow others that they may one day out shine us for the glory of God the Father!)

 

[Allan]

Why do Baptist Churches who insist on following Scripture right down to every jot & tittle completely ignore Church organizational structional as outlined in The New Testament; Elders, Shepherds ( Bishops or Pastors) and Deacons? Also claiming to be congregational lead usually are Pastor controlled and lead.

Elders, Shepherds, and Bishops are all the same office

 

[Allan]

Back to the thread, I think elder rule is impossible unless the elders elected are more spiritually mature than the congregation. That does not mean economically better off.

Uh... isn't that part of the qualifications for a Pastor/Elder?

 

[Jerome]

There's nothing new under the sun. A church with pastor(s) and deacon(s) already has elders, according to these Baptists' understanding of Scripture:


William Rider (first pastor of what came to be Metropolitan Tabernacle Baptist Church, London) in 1656:

"in the word Elders is comprehended all officers in the Church, with the Ministerial work also, . . . and so Elders is distinguished into several offices in the Church, as Bishops and Deacons . . . . Philip. 1.1 vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons ; not Elders and Deacons ; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."


Benjamin Keach (prominent signer of the 1689 LBC) in 1701:

"Moreover, the Deacons are to be helps in Government. Some think Paul calls the Deacons Elders, when he speaks of Elders that rule well [I Tim. 5:17] (as our Annotators observe)"


SBTS's Greg Wills, "The Church: Baptists and Their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries":

"Most churches agreed with Georgia’s Powelton Baptist Church, whose members concluded in 1811 that lay elders were "unnecessary and not sufficiently warranted in scripture." Many of these held that the pastor and deacons jointly constituted the eldership. South Carolina’s Tyger River Baptist Association, for example, judged in 1835 that "the eldership of the church" consisted of "the ministers and deacons."


Shaftsbury Baptist Association, 1804 Circular Letter:

"It appears to us that Bishops, or teaching Elders and Deacons, are the only standing officers to be ordained in the Church. These are both called Elders, 1 Timothy 5:17. . . .By these Elders, we understand Bishops and Deacons; and we have not learned from the scriptures, but that these two are the only officers to be ordained in the Christian Church."


American Baptist Magazine, 1829:

"The term elder was, probably, a general term equivalent to our word officer; and thus it could be applied to a pastor, or to a deacon ; and the elders of a church included the pastor or pastors and the deacons."


The Sword and Trowel, 1866:

"the term elder is applied both to bishops and deacons. This might be supposed to prove too much, as though there had been no separate offices in the Church. It goes, in fact, just to the extent we require, that distinct officers were recognized by the Church, but they were lovingly blended together. There was no contention about a name as expressive of an authority, which it would have been sacrilege for others to invade."